Hartman v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
68 N.E.3d 1266
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Fred Hartman, an ODOT truck driver with decades of experience, suffered single‑ear hearing loss and had disciplinary history including multiple suspensions and four preventable equipment/vehicle accidents in 2012.
- After the third accident he received a five‑day suspension and was later placed on a two‑year "Last Chance Agreement": any further work‑rule violation could lead to termination.
- Hartman filed an EEOC charge (age and disability discrimination) in June 2012 and notified ODOT of intermittent FMLA leave in July 2012 for panic attacks/depression.
- While on approved disability/FMLA leave, Hartman was involved in a mower/highway accident in August 2012 and was terminated on October 2, 2012 for violating the Last Chance Agreement.
- Hartman sued ODOT in the Ohio Court of Claims (disability discrimination, retaliation, FMLA violation). The Court of Claims granted summary judgment for ODOT; the Tenth District affirmed on de novo review, concluding ODOT offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons and Hartman failed to show pretext.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination (R.C. 4112) | Hartman: hearing loss caused the accidents; ODOT failed to accommodate (remove driving duties); termination was discrimination. | ODOT: termination was for repeated, preventable accidents and Last Chance Agreement violation — legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. | Held: ODOT entitled to summary judgment; plaintiff could not show the stated reason was pretextual or lacked factual basis. |
| Retaliation for EEOC charge (R.C. 4112.02(I)) | Hartman: temporal proximity (EEOC filed June 20; termination Oct. 2) shows causal connection; termination was retaliation. | ODOT: acted for legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons (accidents/discipline); no evidence EEOC filing motivated decision. | Held: Prima facie could be made on timing, but Hartman failed to rebut ODOT’s articulated reason or show pretext. |
| FMLA interference/retaliation (29 U.S.C. §2615) | Hartman: requested/used FMLA leave in July–Sept. 2012; termination shortly after shows denial of FMLA benefit/retaliation. | ODOT: termination resulted from policy violation and accidents, not leave; legitimate nondiscriminatory reason. | Held: Even assuming prima facie case on timing, Hartman failed to show pretext; summary judgment for ODOT affirmed. |
| Failure to accommodate / interactive process | Hartman: requested reassignment to non‑driving duties as accommodation for hearing impairment. | ODOT: driving is an essential function; medical review found no medical contraindication to driving; accommodation not required/unduly burdensome. | Held: No evidence the hearing impairment prevented safe performance or that ODOT refused a valid accommodation; claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (Ohio 1977) (summary judgment standard)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (movant/nonmovant burdens on summary judgment)
- Byrd v. Smith, 110 Ohio St.3d 24 (Ohio 2006) (summary judgment de novo review and favorable inferences)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for employment discrimination)
- Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (employer's burden to proffer legitimate nondiscriminatory reason)
- Greer‑Burger v. Temesi, 116 Ohio St.3d 324 (Ohio 2007) (McDonnell Douglas application under Ohio law)
- Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 1078 (6th Cir. 1994) (ways to prove pretext)